The judge heard oral arguments and will issue a ruling when he has made his decision. From his words, I am almost certain that he plans to rule in our favor, but wants to spend some time determining the redaction guidelines for the sheriff's department (this was in response to the SO's assertion that a paid deputy on overtime would need to do the redactions instead of clerical staff - "But the redactions will be based on the guidelines I determine, not yours, right?" [paraphrase]).

Ryan

Thanks Ryan.
Should it be expected then, pending a favorable ruling, we will get to see some good cause statements, both approved/denied with redaction?

I have a co-worker who just submitted his renewal as well. He was told it should go failry quick.

I completed my CCW interview in early April. The Deputy was very likeable and professional as I was very impressed with his demeanor and approach. The interview started by him describing the process and why we were meeting. He wanted to make it clear we would go over line by line my application. He did note that due to the size of my file, very thin, that it should be fairly painless interview. He joked that if it was a thick file we would be talking for a while.

He explained a little about the liability associated with having a CCW if one needed to use it. We went over that brandish of a weapon, even with a CCW, is a crime. However, mitigating circumstances often clear the CCW holder once the details are explained to LE.

I was very open on my application and did not try to cover up anything. Funny enough, he still had some info for which I had completely forgotten about that happened over 17 years ago. I was not cited, however, it was ‘in the system.’

At the end of the interview he told me that he felt I was a citizen of good moral character and should be allowed to CCW and that my application would go forward as such. Apparently, packages go forward in groups so you really don’t know how long it may ‘sit’ before moving forward.

I work at a 07 FFL and received a CCW under the old sheriff. My boss applied for his CCW but missed the cut off and was denied by the new sherriff. It did not make sense how my just cause was sufficient and his as the bussiness owner was not. Anyway he was successfuly in having his application reviewed and now has his CCW.

In response to a lawsuit filed by a gun rights organization, a Ventura County Superior Court judge has issued a preliminary ruling ordering the county to release information about concealed-weapon permits and licenses.

The Calguns Foundation Inc. filed a lawsuit in October after the Ventura County Sheriff's Department refused to release all the records the group requested under the California Public Records Act.

The department provided much of the data but did not release documents on why concealed-weapon permits were approved or denied.

California sheriffs have discretion in deciding legitimate reasons for carrying a concealed weapon and granting permits, and the foundation wanted documents to evaluate the standards that were applied, said Gene Hoffman, chairman of the San Carlos-based nonprofit group.

The foundation, which requested the information as part of a project to help people with the permit process, also wanted to ensure the sheriff's decisions were consistent, Hoffman said.

County officials argued the withheld documents included personal information and details about applicants' vulnerabilities that could compromise their safety, and that redacting the private information as Calguns suggested would cost more than $14,600.

Concealed-weapon permit applications contain a warning that all of the information may be subject to public disclosure, and privacy interests can be protected by redacting some information, Walsh wrote. The foundation agreed some personal details, such as Social Security numbers, could be withheld.

Citing a similar case involving CBS and Los Angeles County, the judge wrote that while releasing the information possibly could pose risks for permit holders, that danger was conjecture and not a valid reason to withhold it. Responding to the county's argument that redacting the documents would be "financially oppressive," the judge called the county's estimate that the task would take nearly 30 work days "seemingly generous." He suggested using a lower-paid administrative person to do the work rather than a sworn deputy costing the overtime rate of $68 an hour — a suggestion "not favorably received by counsel for the county," he said.

The judge ruled the county should produce the requested documents within 45 days and redact details such as when the applicant is potentially vulnerable to attack, home and business addresses, and the specific weapon authorized.

As the prevailing party, Calguns also is entitled to have its legal costs reimbursed by the county, the judge wrote.

The decision will become final unless the county files an appeal within 15 days.

Assistant County Counsel Marina Porche said Wednesday the county was analyzing the decision and had not decided whether to appeal. She would not elaborate.

"At this point, we have won the lawsuit," Hoffman said, adding he expects to receive the permit information within two months. "We're very pleased."

Calguns plans to redact applicants' names and other personal information, then post on its website portions of successful applications, he said. He said the foundation can redact more information if applicants are uncomfortable.

Calguns requested information from all 58 counties in California, and Ventura was the only one to be sued under the Public Records Act, Hoffman said.

He said about 60 percent of counties complied, 20 percent asked for administrative fees his organization considered illegal, and 20 percent refused to release information.

"I expect it's going to bring everyone else into compliance pretty quickly," he said of the judge's decision.

If you're willing to wait a bit (maybe a few weeks to a few months) to apply, CGF will need all the applicants they can get to test Ventura, your participation in the drill would be very helpful not only to other Ventura Co. residents but potentially to future CCW-related cases all over the State. Waiting on Public Records Request/lawsuit to finalize.

Quote:

Originally Posted by duster1974

I received my Ventura CCW packet this week. Is it advised to wait until these GCs are released or just get on with it?

I sent my GC to two advertised forum advisers and both came back negative. I had already requested the packet before seeking advice, so I'm thinking just get on with it and see what happens?

Also, does anyone know of any successful appeals to CCW denial in Ventura County?

__________________The Answer To 1984 Is 1776
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>The free people of the world are at war with an insidious enemy:
a global banking oligarchy determined to shipwreck the economies of the world
and feast on its corpse.

I received my Ventura CCW packet this week. Is it advised to wait until these GCs are released or just get on with it?

I sent my GC to two advertised forum advisers and both came back negative. I had already requested the packet before seeking advice, so I'm thinking just get on with it and see what happens?

Also, does anyone know of any successful appeals to CCW denial in Ventura County?

Quote:

Originally Posted by greasemonkey

If you're willing to wait a bit (maybe a few weeks to a few months) to apply, CGF will need all the applicants they can get to test Ventura, your participation in the drill would be very helpful not only to other Ventura Co. residents but potentially to future CCW-related cases all over the State. Waiting on Public Records Request/lawsuit to finalize.

+1

The county has 30 days left to comply with the courts order to release the information that CGF has requested. It's tough to wait to exercise a right that you shouldn't need permission to exercise in the first place, but in this case its the most prudent course of action. Hang tight, it wont be much longer.

The county has 30 days left to comply with the courts order to release the information that CGF has requested. It's tough to wait to exercise a right that you shouldn't need permission to exercise in the first place, but in this case its the most prudent course of action. Hang tight, it wont be much longer.

I have a few friends in a holding pattern at the moment. Apps in hand waiting for the release of the VC GC statements and CGN advice.

__________________
If you think nobody cares if you're alive, try missing a couple of payments.

Quote:

Originally Posted by XDRoX

Walking around with a banana in a holster won't do anything but get you laughed at.

I spoke with my CCW instructor today. He stated that the Sheriff Dean was rejecting a much greater percentage of applications than in the past. He also stated that many renewals were being denied as well. He told me that the Chief of Police of Port Hueneme had asked the Sheriff for CCWs for his reserve officers and was denied. So much for the new Sheriff continuing Brook's policies. I'm up for my first renewal in October and I am more than a bit concerned.
.
.
.

I spoke with my CCW instructor today. He stated that the Sheriff Dean was rejecting a much greater percentage of applications than in the past. He also stated that many renewals were being denied as well. He told me that the Chief of Police of Port Hueneme had asked the Sheriff for CCWs for his reserve officers and was denied. So much for the new Sheriff continuing Brook's policies. I'm up for my first renewal in October and I am more than a bit concerned.
.
.
.

That doesn't add up....

The sheriff may be rejecting a greater percentage of the applications, and he may be denying renewals. But a Chief of Police does not need to look to the Sheriff for CCW's for reserves, the Chief of Police could issue them him or herself...

I like the way that sounds. Sheriff Dean told me during his campaign that he planned to stream line the process because he felt like it took to long. Apparently he didn't feel it necessary to streamline it to within the statutory time frame spelled out for him.